Translation of "the court took into account" in English. Translation of "the court took into account" in English Translation of "the court took into account" in English

The popular word today “life hacking” (from the English life hacking), as Wikipedia writes, means “the tricks of life”, “folk wisdom” or useful advice, helping to solve everyday problems, thereby saving time.

In 2011, the term appeared on the online pages of the Oxford Dictionary.

Lifehack is designed to solve problems enough large quantity people, saving them time, effort and money. At the same time, a life hack is not the creation of something new (not the invention of the wheel), but the original use of an existing one, for example, “How to make a garden table from a wheel?”

Legal practice also has many of its own specific life hacks. I want to talk about one thing today.

Very often, when writing a claim, statement, or objection to a claim, it becomes necessary to refer to legal position, which is set out in a separate court decision (meaning the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).

After in several cases the courts, simply put, “did not notice” or did not pay attention to my arguments. which included the legal positions of the RF Armed Forces, set out in individual court decisions, in particular, when considering a dispute over land relations, it became clear that something needed to be changed in order to avoid this in the future.

It is generally accepted that lower courts are bound by the conclusions law enforcement practice, set out in the Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. reviews judicial practice and Resolutions of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. If you make reference to the examples set out in these documents to substantiate your requirements, then this is considered normal and acceptable.

But what to do if, in a specific case for which a claim is being prepared, there is a separate court decision of a higher authority that fully confirms the requirements, but is not included in the treasured list. Moreover, it is precisely this that is an additional and sometimes the main argument in the dispute, without which the motivation for the claim can no longer be considered sufficiently convincing. You can wait as long as you want for the desired solution to appear in one of the listed documents, but in the end it may not get there at all, and time will be lost.

Very often in the text of the claim, in addition to listing evidence, legal norms, conclusions of law enforcement practice as an additional argument there is often a reference to specific solution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (most often this is a cassation ruling on a specific case), and a quote from the decision on how this or that article of the law should be applied.

At the same time, referring as an additional argument to the decision of the RF Supreme Court in a specific case. to attract the attention of the court, the details of the judicial act are indicated, excerpts from it are quoted in explanations, in debates, explanations, speeches are attached to the case in writing, but all in vain. The court did not take your argument into account.

How do the courts justify such actions?

Sometimes they don’t notice anything at all, either the decision itself or the position expressed in it.

Often the court in its decision indicates that the plaintiff, defendant, and third parties did not take part in the case to which the decision is referred. therefore, it is not prejudicial and cannot be used in the present case.

Also, a judge can generally say that we do not have case law, and refer to a separate decision, even if it is not worth it from the Supreme Court. that each case is examined separately, taking into account all existing circumstances, etc.

Therefore, this particular presentation of material does not work in most cases.

What to do in such cases?

Firstly, those involved in the case should not be embarrassed by such refusals. The only task that a lawyer always faces is to do his job efficiently and use all opportunities for this.

Secondly, you need to remember and observe three principles; they are well known and do not need explanation. This is the accessibility of the material, its clarity and persuasiveness. I would like to emphasize that persuasiveness lies in the form, and not just in the content. How does this look in relation to our case?

From my own experience I can say that in most cases the judge’s position on a particular case is formed 80% already in the process of studying statement of claim. or other document submitted and evidence attached thereto.

By the way a claim or other procedural document is drawn up, how it sets out the facts and presents evidence, what petitions are filed, its very execution, including the presence grammatical errors, as well as based on the personality of the applicant and his representative, the judge almost immediately becomes clear with whom he will have to deal, and how high these persons can go up the ladder of the courts if they receive a refusal decision.

What needs to be done to achieve the desired goal?

First of all, you need to understand the evidence in the case and accurately determine that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation fully confirms the position set out in the lawsuit, that it has not lost its relevance at present.

There is no prohibition on referring to a judicial act of a higher court in your arguments. Courts very often use the phrase that “the current legislation does not contain a ban on this.” Let’s take advantage of this.

First you need to print the text court decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in a separate copy. You can, of course, simply print it out in Word, taking the text of the judicial act from the same “Consultant” or “Guarantor”. But it will not look as convincing as we would like.

The website of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has a special section - texts of judicial acts (http://test.vsrf.ru/indexA.php)

It is from there that you need to download the text of the court decision you need, it is downloaded in PDF format, and then printed page by page. As is known, the texts of judicial acts of the RF Armed Forces have a specific form of execution, there is practically no depersonalization in the nickname (unlike the same “Consultant”), there are signatures of judges. As the source of the received document, after the text you can insert a link to the page from the website of the RF Armed Forces from which the decision was downloaded.

Then highlight the desired part of the text with a marker. There is no need to highlight a lot; one or two sentences to the point are enough.

Then attach this text of the court decision along with other documents attached to the claim and, accordingly, include it in the appendices to the claim. And then send it to court in the usual manner.

This must be done precisely at the stage of filing a claim, because then it is quite difficult to include such a decision in the case materials during the consideration.

Now referring to the legal position of the Supreme Court, after presenting it, indicate in brackets the sheet of the case and the paragraph on the page (case file no.).

What is this for?

If you simply indicate in the claim the details of the court decision and quote it, it is not a fact that the judge will want to independently look for it in the Consultant, much less read it in full, delving into its meaning.

But if the decision, attached in the required form, is in the case materials, and there is a link to the page and even a paragraph, which will also be highlighted and noticeable, then the likelihood that the judge will read this position and take it into account increases many times over.

In addition, if the claim is denied, or a complaint is filed to a higher authority, then the document can also refer to this court decision and indicate the pages of the case where the required text is available. Which will certainly be read by a higher court judge. Because it is already in place and there is no need to search for it further. This is a brick in the foundation, the basis for future appeal and cassation.

And the court also understands this circumstance.

Therefore, the courts in every possible way prevent the inclusion of third-party decisions in the case materials if they do not fit into their position on a particular case, since they know very well that due to the heavy workload, none of the judges of higher courts will study anything additionally besides the case materials.

It's very simple. All evidence is contained only in the case materials. Therefore, the task is to ensure that by the end of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the case materials contain all possible evidence that is available at that time.

One can always argue that individual judicial decisions of the same Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on specific cases are not binding for lower courts, except for those whose judicial acts were canceled by these decisions.

I agree that this happens very often.

But the main task in any business is to make every effort to support your position, and what is proposed to be done will never be superfluous.

It is not known for certain how the matter will develop later. Therefore, it is not worth predicting in advance about the negative outcome of the case. There are enough examples when court decisions were canceled only after consideration of the complaint by the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, after the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and in some cases by the ECHR, such as the case “Shtukaturov v. the Russian Federation”.

I wish you all success in our difficult work.

Lawyer Sergey Nikolaevich Nesterov, Ivanovo region, Teykovo.

Traffic police officers suspected the man of driving a car while alcohol intoxication. After conducting the appropriate test, an entry appeared in the report - drunk.

The driver did not agree with this and insisted on repeated tests, which should be carried out in medical institution. However, tests at the district hospital also showed the alcohol content in the exhaled air. Although there are some strange things here.

The documents on the test stated that the purpose of the study was to identify the content opiates, cannabinoids, psychostimulants, amphetamines, barbiturates. There was no mention of alcohol, but it was found.

As a result, the magistrate deprived the man of his license for 1.5 years and imposed a fine of 30 thousand rubles. Not agreeing with the verdict, the driver was examined on the same day at another medical institution for own initiative. This study clearly showed that no alcohol was found in his body.

In addition, the man is a devout Muslim: he honors rituals, regularly goes to the mosque, and performs prayers five times a day. Alcohol for him is absolutely prohibited - haram ( prohibition, taboo - approx.).

Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 1997 N 3184/97 The court did not take into account that the power of attorney to receive the goods was of a one-time nature. Thus, the plaintiff released the goods to an unauthorized person. In this case, according to Art. 312 of the Civil Code, the risk of consequences falls on the supplier. The court decision was overturned and the claim was denied

The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation considered the protest of the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation against the decision of October 24, 1996 and the resolution appellate court from 12/30/96 Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow in case No. 66-406.

Having heard and discussed the judge's report, the Presidium established the following.

The open joint stock company "Margarine Plant" filed a claim with the Moscow Arbitration Court against state enterprise"State Concert" on the collection of 24,290,677 rubles of debt for supplied products, 130,002,926 rubles of penalties for late payment and 18,997,739 rubles of interest for the use of other people's funds.

Decision dated October 24, 1996 claims partially satisfied, taking into account the reduction of penalties to the amount of the principal debt.

By the decision of the appellate court dated December 30, 1996, the decision was upheld.

In the protest of the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to cancel these judicial acts and send the case for a new trial.

The Presidium believes that the protest must be satisfied in part for the following reasons.

According to the agreement dated 12/08/95 N 13 concluded between the parties, the margarine plant undertook to provide fat products in the quantity and assortment agreed upon by the parties, and Goskontsert accepted it for pick-up and paid for it.

In pursuance of the terms of the agreement, on December 14, 1995, State Concert entered into an agreement for forwarding services with the closed joint-stock company "Rassar", whose employee is commodity expert R.Kh. Akopyan. - a power of attorney dated December 14, 1995 N 321 was issued with a validity period until December 24, 1995 to receive goods of a certain name and in a certain quantity.

The margarine plant released products to the authorized person on December 14, 1995 under waybills N 31754, 31755 and on December 20, 1995 under waybills 40785, 81914 for a total amount of 31,109,538 rubles. The supplier did not receive payment for it in full. The underpayment amounted to 24,290,677 rubles.

To justify the refusal to pay for the products under invoices 40785, 81914, Gosconcert referred to the fact that the products were not ordered or received by them under these invoices, and also to the fact that after receiving the goods under the invoices dated 12/14/95, power of attorney dated 12/14/95 N 321 , issued to Akopyan R.Kh., is considered cancelled, therefore the supplier on December 20, 1995 did not have the right to make additions to the same invoice and release the goods using it.

The court, partially satisfying the claims, proceeded from the proof of the fact that the defendant received the disputed goods, as well as from the lack of evidence that the plaintiff and the merchandiser were notified by the defendant about the early cancellation of the power of attorney. Therefore, the court decided that on December 20, 1995, the plaintiff lawfully released goods manager Akopyan R.Kh. controversial products.

Meanwhile, having made such a conclusion, the court did not take into account that the power of attorney dated December 14, 1995 N 321 was of a one-time nature, since on its reverse side the name and quantity of inventory items to be received are indicated, and the blank fields of the power of attorney are crossed out. It follows from this that in order to receive a consignment of goods on December 20, 1995, the buyer had to issue a new power of attorney indicating the name and quantity of the goods of this consignment, which was not done. Thus, on December 20, 1995, the plaintiff released the goods to an unauthorized person. In this case, according to Article 312 Civil Code Russian Federation, the risk of consequences falls on the supplier.

Under such circumstances, the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court should be canceled and the claim denied.

Taking into account the above and guided by Articles 187-189 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation decided:

the decision of 10.24.96 and the appellate resolution of 12.30.96 of the Moscow Arbitration Court in case No. 66-406 are cancelled.

Refuse the open joint-stock company "Margarine Plant" to file a claim against the state enterprise "Goskontsert".

Chairman of the Supreme

Arbitration Court

Russian

English

Arabic German English Spanish French Hebrew Italian Japanese Dutch Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Turkish

"> This link will open in a new tab"> This link will open in a new tab">

These examples may contain rude words based on your search.

These examples may contain colloquial words based on your search.

Translation of "the court took into account" in English

See examples translated by
(8 examples with alignment)

See examples translated by court took into account
(8 examples with alignment)

See examples translated by Court considered the
(2 examples with alignment)

See examples translated by court took note
(2 examples with alignment)

Other translations

Suggestions

The State party emphasizes that the court took into account the author's state of health and concluded that there was no reason to believe that he would not receive adequate medical care while in detention.

The court took into account the fact that achieving economic integration with other states is a constitutional strategy that must be pursued on the basis of the principles of equity, reciprocity and national convenience.

The Court took into consideration that economic integration with other States is a constitutional strategy that should be achieved on the basis of fairness, reciprocity and national convenience.

Court took into consideration that economic integration with other States is a constitutional strategy that should be achieved on the basis of fairness, reciprocity and national convenience.">

By assigning punishment, the court took into account public danger and grave consequences of the crime committed by the author.

When imposing the punishment, the court took into account public danger and the severe consequences of the crime committed by the author.

Court took into account public danger and the severe consequences of the crime committed by the author.">

In addition, Supreme the court took into account excessive duration trial and used this factor as a mitigating circumstance.

Besides, the Supreme Court took into account the length of the proceedings and used it as a mitigating factor in this regard.

Court took into account the length of the proceedings and used it as a mitigating factor in this regard.">

When exercising their powers the court took into account balancing considerations of convenience for the parties.

Court considered the balance of convenience to the parties.">

And finally the court took into account the serious nature of the defects, taking into account a specialist report showing that bricks passing through this equipment had a failure rate of between 75 and 84 percent depending on the speed used.

Lastly, the Court considered the seriousness of the defects in the light of the expert report that had shown that bricks passing through the machine exhibited a breakage level of between 75 per cent and 84 per cent, depending on the speed applied.

Court considered the seriousness of the defects in the light of the expert report that had shown that bricks passing through the machine exhibited a breakage level of between 75 per cent and 84 per cent, depending on the speed applied.">

Drawing this conclusion, the court took into account the existence of the relevant international trade custom and its significance under Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

In reaching this conclusion, the court took into account the existence of an international trade usage to this effect and its relevance pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Court took into account the existence of an international trade usage to this effect and its relevance pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2 of the Convention.">

Considering this case, the European the court took into account a convincing argument made by the author to refute the government's thesis that his story is unreliable3.

In this case, the European Court took into account the author"s persuasive argument rebutting the Government"s claim that his account lacked credibility.

Court took into account the author"s persuasive argument rebutting the Government"s claim that his account lacked credibility.">

In addition to these indications the court took into account the author's confessions made during the preliminary investigation, which support both the testimony of witnesses and other evidence.

In addition to those testimonies, the court took into account the author"s confessions given during the preliminary investigation, which corroborate both the witnesses" depositions and the rest of the evidence.

Court took into account the author"s confessions given during the preliminary investigation, which corroborate both the witnesses" depositions and the rest of the evidence.">

2.7 The author further submits that in determining the penalty the court took into account his existing criminal record, for which he had already suffered punishment at the time of sentencing (December 6, 2002).

2.7 The author further claims that in deciding the level of punishment, the court took into account his prior conviction, which he had already served before the sentence was handed down (6 December 2002).

Court took into account his prior conviction, which he had already served before the sentence was handed down (6 December 2002).">

Supreme the court took into account the fact that the author was previously subjected to administrative punishment according to part 1 of article 23.34 of the Code of administrative offenses, and held that the lower courts correctly determined his actions under Section 3 of the same article.

The Supreme Court took into account that the author had previously been the subject of an administrative penalty under article 23.34, part 1, of the Code on Administrative Offences and determined that the lower courts had correctly defined his actions under part 3 of the same article.

Court took into account that the author had previously been the subject of an administrative penalty under article 23.34, part 1, of the Code on Administrative Offences and determined that the lower courts had correctly defined his actions under part 3 of the same article.">

The court took into account and supported Georgia's main argument and stated that Russian Federation is a party to the dispute between Russia and Georgia, which arose as a result of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008.

The Court took into consideration and upheld the main argument of Georgia and declared that the Russian Federation was a party to the dispute between Russia and Georgia which had arisen as a result of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.

Court took into consideration and upheld the main argument of Georgia and declared that the Russian Federation was a party to the dispute between Russia and Georgia which had arisen as a result of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.">

In determining the amount due to the wife, The court took into account The advantageous circumstance for the wife is that she receives her share of her husband's pension benefit in the form of a lump sum payment.

When it determined the sum to which the wife was entitled, the Court took into consideration the advantage involved in the fact that her share of the husband's pension rights took the form of a lump-sum payment.

Court took into consideration the advantage involved in the fact that her share of the husband's pension rights took the form of a lump-sum payment.">

The court took into account that modifications to ATMs can be carried out at the same time as annual maintenance and that the associated costs should be calculated not by individual ATM, but by type of ATM.

The Court took into account that retrofitting of the ATMs could be carried out at the same time as the annual maintenance services and that the cost incurred must be calculated per ATM type, and not per ATM.

Court took into account that retrofitting of the ATMs could be carried out at the same time as the annual maintenance services and that the cost incurred must be calculated per ATM type, and not per ATM.">

The court took into account interests of the girl in this case and considered that she also has the right to justice, which means that this case should be considered in court.

Judge Mitkova JI.B.

CASSATION DETERMINATION

Judicial panel for civil cases Astrakhan Regional Court composed of: presiding Mukhambetalieva N.Kh.

judges of the regional court Karpova I.Yu., Egorova I.V.

under secretary Potapova N.V.

heard in open court on the report of judge Karpova I.Yu. case on the cassation appeal of representative Silyaev R.F. - Shnychkina D.P. on the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Astrakhan dated June 3, 2011 on the claim of the Open Joint Stock Company TransCreditBank represented by the Astrakhan branch against R.F. Silyaev. on the collection of interest for using a loan,

installed:

Open joint stock company TransCreditBank, represented by the Astrakhan branch, filed a lawsuit against R.F. Silyaev. about collecting interest for using a loan, motivating their demands by the fact that. *** concluded between them and the defendant loan agreement in the amount of *** rubles at *** per annum for a period of up to ***. In connection with the failure to fulfill obligations under the loan agreement, the Bank filed a claim in court for debt collection, by the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Astrakhan dated October 23, 2009 against R.F. Silyaev. the debt on the loan, the cost of paying the state duty were collected, the mortgaged property was foreclosed on - *** at the address: ***, the initial sale price of the apartment was established in the amount of *** rubles. IN deadline the apartment was not sold, it was transferred to the Bank by a bailiff at a price of *** rubles. The debt was partially repaid at the expense of the defendant’s property, the balance of the debt amounted to *** rubles. The bank asked to recover from the defendant the debt to pay interest on the overdue principal debt for the period from *** to *** in the amount of *** rubles, payment costs state duty in the amount of *** rubles.

The representative of TransCreditBank OJSC, represented by the Astrakhan branch, supported the claim at the court hearing.

Defendant Silyaev R.F., his representative Shnychkin D.P. the claim was not recognized.

By decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Astrakhan dated June 3, 2011, the claims were satisfied.

In response to the court's decision, Silyaev's representative R.F. - Shnychkin D.P. a cassation appeal was brought, which raises the question of canceling the decision. It is stated that the court did not take into account the repayment of the principal amount and interest on the loan by transferring the pledged property to the plaintiff, did not consider the issue of the value of the apartment at the time of filing the claim, and did not evaluate this property. It is believed that the court unreasonably took into account the Bank’s calculation, which is based on the principal amount of the loan, without taking into account the repaid amount.

The representative of TransCreditBank OJSC represented by the Astrakhan branch, having been duly notified, did not appear at the meeting of the judicial panel, did not submit a motion to postpone the consideration of the complaint, with the specified
circumstances in accordance with Art. 354 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel considers it possible to consider the case in his absence.

Having listened to R.F. Silyaev, his representative D.P. Shnychkin, who supported the arguments of the complaint, checked the case materials, and discussed the arguments of the complaint, the judicial panel comes to the conclusion that the court decision was canceled due to the lack of proof of the circumstances relevant to the case established by the court of first instance.

The court of first instance came to the conclusion that the defendant had violated his obligations to pay the loan, and collected from the defendant in favor of the bank an amount of *** rubles - interest on the overdue principal debt, taking into account the calculation of the debt presented by the plaintiff.

The court's conclusion that the defendant owes the plaintiff a debt in the specified amount is not supported by evidence.

As follows from the materials of the case *** between OJSC TransCreditBank represented by the Astrakhan branch and Silyaev R.F. a loan agreement No. *** was concluded for the amount of *** rubles at *** per annum for a period of up to *** /l.d.62-66/. The borrower did not properly fulfill his obligations under this loan agreement.

By the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Astrakhan dated October 23, 2009, R.F. Silyaev in favor of TransCreditBank OJSC, a loan debt in the amount of *** rubles was recovered, of which - the debt on the principal debt *** rubles, interest on the overdue principal debt *** rubles, overdue interest *** rubles, penalties ** *, the cost of paying the state duty is *** rubles, foreclosure was applied to the pledged property - ***, located at the address: ***, the initial sale price of the pledged property was established in the amount of *** rubles / pp. 6-8/ . By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated November 25, 2009, the decision was left unchanged.

By order of the bailiff from ***, the unsold apartment was transferred to TransCreditBank OJSC to pay off the debt, its cost was *** rubles. The ownership right of TransCreditBank OJSC to the specified apartment was registered ***, for which a certificate was issued state registration rights. The balance of the debt according to the court decision amounted to *** rubles. The plaintiff asked to recover interest on the specified amount, which amounted to *** rubles, from the defendant in their favor. At the same time, the plaintiff presented several calculations of interest calculated for different periods.

In the decision, the court did not indicate which calculation was taken into account, for what period and why, did not check the defendant’s arguments about the incorrectness of the calculations presented by the plaintiff, and did not provide in the decision the reasons why it did not agree with the arguments presented by the party in support of the objections to the claim. The court did not take into account the partial repayment of the debt by the defendant as a result of the transfer of the apartment to the plaintiff, estimated at *** rubles, therefore, the reduction in the amount of the principal debt, did not take into account the provisions of clause 4.2 of the agreement dated ***, according to which interest is charged by the creditor on the balance of the debt on principal debt.

These circumstances are important for the correct resolution of the dispute.

In accordance with the provisions of Art. 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court evaluates evidence according to its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the evidence available in the case.

No evidence has predetermined value for the court.

The court evaluates the relevance, admissibility, reliability of each evidence separately, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of the evidence in its entirety.

The court is obliged to reflect the results of the assessment of evidence in a decision, which provides the reasons why some evidence was accepted as a means of substantiating the court’s conclusions, other evidence was rejected by the court, as well as the reasons why some evidence was given preference over others.

These legal requirements were not met by the court.

Under such circumstances, the court's decision cannot be considered correct and is subject to cancellation. Violations committed by the court of first instance cannot be corrected by the court cassation instance, in connection with which, the case is subject to remand for a new consideration, during which the above should be taken into account, the arguments given by the parties in support of their claims and objections should be checked, the evidence presented should be assessed, court order, consistent with the law.

Guided by Art. 361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Astrakhan Regional Court,

determined:

the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Astrakhan dated June 3, 2011 is canceled and the case is sent for a new trial to the same court.